Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: John Conway games of life love old and new Bob L Petersen
Replies: 203   Last Post: Jul 26, 2013 10:22 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Bob L Petersen Posts: 531 From: My lawn show Registered: 12/4/04
Rough Draft 3 Electron Collision With Neutron Conservation Bob L. Petersen
Posted: Jun 23, 2012 9:44 AM

THE LARGE PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM. fOLLOWING THE FIRST LINE OF \$\$\$\$\$\$. It is just before the original. It is a short walk through. A ?PARTS CHECK I AM READY TO CHART THIS.

Rough Draft 3 Electron Collision With Neutron Conservation Bob L. Petersen

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CHECK AND CHECK AGAIN

With this the idea of a magnetic moment makes sense. It's the ??Part?? cause the motion not ?Particles? ?FORMATION?. From right hand rules study.

I now think I should go back and go over ?Pair Production?. I had thought of a \$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$. Now along with the above I would like to look at a possible ??UINT Of Time??.

CHECK FOR WHAT TELLS ALIGNMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The electron will at first react as if though it ?RACTING? with a negatively charged ?Particle? at High energies it will at as though it was a positively charged particle.

Coulomb Barrier

An Electron colliding with a Neutron with more than enough energy to pass through the Coulomb Barrier will ?React? as though collided with a negatively charged ?Particle?. With the energy of Electron increasing this will continue till the Electron will ?React? as though collided with a positively charged ?Particle?.

The first thought I took note of back then was that the level within the neutron it got to determines the what it will be ?Reacting? through out it's exiting.

????? propagation ?????? Has a big part this how much more. OUCH??? This time with ?STRUCTURE? being of interest Neutron's ?STRUCTURE? was of most interest. I stepped out lightly. There should be at least a ?NEAR HALF A WAVELENGTH STRUCTURE? in between the two, whether observeable or not. ?STRUCTURE? already includes that ?ELECTRIC FIELDS? have ?STRUCTURAL? ?ELEMENTS? that cause the ?REACTIONS?.

There would have to be ?STRUCTURE?. ?CONVERSION? of existing ?ELECTRIC FIELDS? ?STRUCTURAL? ?ELEMENTS?. ????? propagation ????? MEANS WAVE OUT CAUSE PATTERN ?LOCK? PLUS TWO

Now I may have now THREE ?WHATS?? in the ?NEUTRON?. The ?LOCK? also comes into question here because propagation is causing the other two in varing degrees. (This one of the easiest places to see how one change causes what makes it so confusing.)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The ?LOCK? causes ?COULOMB BARRIER? by it's ?INTERACTION? with ?SPACE?. The ?LOCK'S? ?POSITIVE ELECTRIC FIELDS? and the ?ELECTRON'S? ?NEGATIVE ELECTRIC FIELDS? cause what looks to be ?COULOMB BALANCER?. (One then ends up looking at what could just be ?FIT? together. The whys are hidden at this time. The energy of Electron is a source for ?Structural Element? that bring about the ?FIT?.) Here is a time to consider their naming of the COULOMB BARRIER. The COULOMB BARRIER a barrier to charge and more. Now I see the inner ?Structural Element? ?RAISE?. HOW ?RESTRUCED? is the Electron ?STRUCTURE?? What other factors ?PART?or ?PARTS of PARTS? I have considered the Shinking in size of ?Particles? when traveling faster. This would be a different kind of ?Structural Elements? or ?Structural Relationships?, too.

All energy remains ?Bound? thru Collision to the ?LOCK?.

I AM READY TO CHART THIS.

Bob L. Petersen

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

On finally ?ROUND? of tinking about the following, for now. It's Positronium's ?POSITRON?. Just by what happens it is not the exactly the ?ELECTRON'S? ?ANTI-PARTICLE?. This is the second positively charged particle that can have a negative revolving around it. I am not saying it has a full ?WEAK FIELD? and neither does ?PARTS?. This is the most major symmetry break, because both the ?Electron? and ?Positron? are stable particles. Both have the same mass, sum of motions equal. ??JUST A NON-FIT NO WEAK FIELD FUNCTION??

(The two amoung the Strange Particle must be kept in mind though. The first ?ELEMENT? is time and the upper ?FOLDED? over a ?PROTON? is mass. That whole look at it was parked after it didn't lead to anything directly. All one could do is see something that by itself lead to nothing.)

?PARTS? should have said One of the stables should have a symmetry break but that would sound like a dream till it's seen. ?PART? now says that makes this the tightest or compact system. That means that the ?NEGATIVE FIELD? may only point toward the ?LOCK?.

The definition of the ?ELECTRON? tells it's ?LOCK? and it's ?FIT?. ?ELECTRON? Starting from what Center is the ?Lock?. Then, the ?STRONG FIELD ELEMENTS? ?Trunking? the ?Lacing? or ?Fitting? of the ?WEAK FIELD ELEMENTS?. This ?Timed? ?Interaction? is the most basic ?Structure?. That says on thing in Pair Producion. That is the only time a ?LOCK? can grow from that of a ?ELECTRON? to a ?PROTON?.

?SPACE? must hold the key to this, it has to. My BIG BANG requires it, otherise why not both or why not the other.

In the middle of writing this paper I realised I needed to grow the definition. That is when it started to fall into place. ?STRONG FIELD ELEMENTS? ?COMPOSED OF UNITS OF SPACE? ?Trunking? the ?Lacing? or ?Fitting? of the ?WEAK FIELD ELEMENTS?. ?COMPOSED OF UNITS OF SPACE? THE METHOD INVITES GROWTH IT NEEDS. That says on thing in Pair Producion. That is the only time a ?LOCK? can grow from that of a ?ELECTRON? to a ?PROTON?.

(There is a ?Family? of Linear ?Elements? and ?Parts?, also formed from ?UNIT? of ?SPACE?. There are Two types Curves Formed.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

With this the idea of a magnetic moment makes sense. It's the ??Part?? cause the motion not ?Particles? ?FORMATION?. From right hand rules study.

I now think I should go back and go over ?Pair Production?. I had thought of a \$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$. Now along with the above I would like to look at a possible ??UINT Of Time??.

I AM READY TO CHART THIS.

Bob L. Petersen

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Date Subject Author
8/26/09 Bob L Petersen
2/23/10 Bob L Petersen
8/27/09 Bob L Petersen
8/27/09 Bob L Petersen
8/28/09 Bob L Petersen
8/28/09 Bob L Petersen
8/28/09 Bob L Petersen
8/28/09 Bob L Petersen
8/29/09 Bob L Petersen
8/29/09 Bob L Petersen
8/29/09 Bob L Petersen
8/31/09 Bob L Petersen
8/31/09 Bob L Petersen
9/9/09 Bob L Petersen
8/31/09 Bob L Petersen
9/1/09 Bob L Petersen
9/3/09 Bob L Petersen
9/4/09 Bob L Petersen
9/9/09 Bob L Petersen
9/10/09 Bob L Petersen
9/11/09 Bob L Petersen
9/11/09 Bob L Petersen
9/12/09 Bob L Petersen
9/15/09 Bob L Petersen
9/15/09 Bob L Petersen
9/16/09 Bob L Petersen
9/18/09 Bob L Petersen
9/18/09 Bob L Petersen
9/18/09 Bob L Petersen
9/18/09 Bob L Petersen
9/22/09 Bob L Petersen
9/23/09 Bob L Petersen
9/23/09 Bob L Petersen
9/24/09 Bob L Petersen
9/26/09 Bob L Petersen
9/26/09 Bob L Petersen
9/26/09 Bob L Petersen
9/26/09 Bob L Petersen
9/28/09 Bob L Petersen
9/29/09 Bob L Petersen
9/29/09 Bob L Petersen
9/30/09 Bob L Petersen
10/1/09 Bob L Petersen
10/1/09 Bob L Petersen
10/1/09 Bob L Petersen
10/2/09 Bob L Petersen
10/3/09 Bob L Petersen
10/3/09 Bob L Petersen
10/3/09 Bob L Petersen
10/5/09 Bob L Petersen
10/5/09 Bob L Petersen
10/5/09 Bob L Petersen
10/5/09 Bob L Petersen
10/6/09 Bob L Petersen
10/6/09 Bob L Petersen
10/6/09 Bob L Petersen
10/7/09 Bob L Petersen
10/7/09 Bob L Petersen
10/8/09 Bob L Petersen
10/8/09 Bob L Petersen
10/8/09 Bob L Petersen
10/9/09 Bob L Petersen
10/10/09 Bob L Petersen
10/10/09 Bob L Petersen
10/10/09 Bob L Petersen
10/14/09 Bob L Petersen
10/15/09 Bob L Petersen
10/19/09 Bob L Petersen
10/24/09 Bob L Petersen
10/24/09 Bob L Petersen
10/26/09 Bob L Petersen
10/30/09 Bob L Petersen
10/30/09 Bob L Petersen
11/3/09 Bob L Petersen
11/4/09 Bob L Petersen
11/6/09 Bob L Petersen
11/7/09 Bob L Petersen
11/9/09 Bob L Petersen
11/9/09 Bob L Petersen
11/13/09 Bob L Petersen
11/20/09 Bob L Petersen
11/30/09 Bob L Petersen
12/1/09 Bob L Petersen
12/1/09 Bob L Petersen
12/1/09 Bob L Petersen
12/7/09 Bob L Petersen
12/7/09 Bob L Petersen
12/8/09 Bob L Petersen
12/8/09 Bob L Petersen
12/8/09 Bob L Petersen
7/26/13 Bob L Petersen
12/17/09 Bob L Petersen
12/23/09 Bob L Petersen
12/31/09 Bob L Petersen
2/22/10 Bob L Petersen
2/22/10 Bob L Petersen
2/23/10 Bob L Petersen
2/23/10 Bob L Petersen
2/24/10 Bob L Petersen
2/24/10 Bob L Petersen
2/25/10 Bob L Petersen
2/26/10 Bob L Petersen
2/26/10 Bob L Petersen
2/27/10 Bob L Petersen
3/4/10 Bob L Petersen
3/5/10 Bob L Petersen
3/6/10 Bob L Petersen
3/6/10 Bob L Petersen
3/6/10 Bob L Petersen
3/8/10 Bob L Petersen
3/9/10 Bob L Petersen
3/10/10 Bob L Petersen
3/11/10 Bob L Petersen
3/11/10 Bob L Petersen
3/13/10 Bob L Petersen
3/15/10 Bob L Petersen
3/15/10 Bob L Petersen
3/17/10 Bob L Petersen
3/17/10 Bob L Petersen
3/17/10 Bob L Petersen
3/18/10 Bob L Petersen
3/19/10 Bob L Petersen
3/19/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
3/20/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
3/22/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
3/23/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
3/24/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
3/25/10 Bob L Petersen
3/29/10 Bob L Petersen
3/30/10 Bob L Petersen
3/31/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
4/1/10 Bob L Petersen
4/6/10 Bob L Petersen
4/6/10 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
7/3/11 Bob L Petersen
4/27/10 Bob L Petersen
4/27/10 Bob L Petersen
4/28/10 Bob L Petersen
4/28/10 Bob L Petersen
4/29/10 Bob L Petersen
4/29/10 Bob L Petersen
4/29/10 Bob L Petersen
4/30/10 Bob L Petersen
4/30/10 Bob L Petersen
5/3/10 Bob L Petersen
5/3/10 Bob L Petersen
5/4/10 Bob L Petersen
5/5/10 Bob L Petersen
5/8/10 Bob L Petersen
5/10/10 Bob L Petersen
5/11/10 Bob L Petersen
5/12/10 Bob L Petersen
5/15/10 Bob L Petersen
5/21/10 Bob L Petersen
5/25/10 Bob L Petersen
5/26/10 Bob L Petersen
5/29/10 Bob L Petersen
6/8/10 Bob L Petersen
12/16/10 Bob L Petersen
1/25/11 Bob L Petersen
1/25/12 Bob L Petersen
1/26/11 Bob L Petersen
1/26/11 Bob L Petersen
3/9/11 Bob L Petersen
3/9/11 Bob L Petersen
6/5/11 Bob L Petersen
5/19/11 Bob L Petersen
5/19/11 Bob L Petersen
5/28/11 Bob L Petersen
6/2/11 Bob L Petersen
6/22/11 Bob L Petersen
6/23/11 Bob L Petersen
6/27/11 Bob L Petersen
6/27/11 Bob L Petersen
12/5/11 Bob L Petersen
1/18/12 Bob L Petersen
1/20/12 Bob L Petersen
5/23/12 Bob L Petersen
6/10/12 Bob L Petersen
6/12/12 Bob L Petersen
6/16/12 Bob L Petersen
6/16/12 Bob L Petersen
6/23/12 Bob L Petersen
9/18/12 Bob L Petersen
9/20/12 Bob L Petersen
9/28/12 Bob L Petersen
9/30/12 Bob L Petersen
11/8/12 Bob L Petersen
12/5/12 Bob L Petersen
7/22/13 Bob L Petersen